No announcement yet.

My Rant on ... Homeless Shelters!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My Rant on ... Homeless Shelters!

    First - I am NOT against helping the homeless or providing a warm, dry, safe place for the less fortunate to stay, food to eat, or medical care. What I am against is what is going on less than a block from Sami's school!

    Springfield has announced plans to 'revitalize' a once thriving area of town that is now the home of several missions and shelters. Many families have been helped to find jobs, health care, and homes through the efforts of these agencies. One of these agencies, the Victory Mission, is for men only. The facility is licensed to house no more than 50 men at any one time, but the operators have admittedly broken the law many times to allow more men into the shelter. Food, clothing, and medical care are distributed. The shelter has become well-known throughout the nation as being a great place for the homeless to go. Less than 5% of the residents are from the SW Missouri area. Known sex offenders are living there. The only rules are no drugs, no alcohol, and you have to sit through a sermon. Drunks and drug users are turned away. One person - ONLY ONE person - is present to screen and supervise fifty or more men.
    Now the city sees a cash cow because a developer has submitted plans to renovate the building into retail space and upscale condominiums. The potential tax revenue from this plan is quite large; the loss of services to the indigent is extreme.
    Plans to move the shelter into a defunct nursing home have been made. The new shelter will house about 150 men - three times the number currently housed at the existing facility. The new shelter will be less than 500 feet from a Head Start school (for 4 year olds) and less than 750 feet from an elementary school.
    The operators have promised that only men who pass background checks and are clean and sober will be allowed to stay there. Two or three video cameras will be set up outside for surveillance, as well as additional lighting added.
    That's not good enough. Those who are turned away will remain in the area. Crime will skyrocket. Children will be put at risk in violation of state law, and the shelter operators are the ones who are breaking said law, as well as the city council members who vote to allow this. Drug use will go up. Property rates will go down by 30% or more.
    The residents of this neighborhood have worked long and hard to clean it up. Crime is still high, but is much lower than ten years ago. Houses are being restored to their Victorian charm. Gangs have almost disappeared. Yet, these 'geniuses' are willing to throw all this away just for tax profit...

    BTW, we have ONE police officer assigned to this neighborhood of 1800 homes, a small little lady named Officer Angela Burgess. She has admitted that she can ask for more help in the area, but it will not be assigned.

    I have great outside lighting, video cameras outside, a church next door with great lighting, two good watchdogs....I still find evidence of drug use next door. If all those deterrents haven't stopped crime, how am I supposed to feel that my family is safe when 150 persons of unknown origin suddenly appear blocks away?

    AV, GC, anyone? Can you help us?

  • #2
    Re: My Rant on ... Homeless Shelters!

    Sam, I saw that on the news. I would not stand for it one bit if it were happeneing out here in the 'burbs. Actually, that is why we moved out here; that and the schools. Unfortunately, when Finney and his other hoods get together and see dollar signs they are willing to sell out anyone for the almight buck. In fact, I think that Springfield would be a better managed and wealthier town without him. I feel badly for you. I am not sure what part of town that you live in and where exactly this is taking place (I think that they said it was on the north west part of town; near Midtown??). I really like what some of the residents in older parts of town have done with those older homes. They are beautiful when they are restored. It will be a damned shame if this shelter destroys this area; if that is the one that I am thinking of. I don't even like Commercial Street and fail to see the significance of it anyway. I am sure that it has an historical past. However, to me, having lived here for 7 years, it is just the homeless shelter street and always will be. Midtown and other areas need to be preserved. I don't have a solution, but it would be nice to get a petition drive going to keep shelters of this type at least a mile from schools and daycares. That is your only hope. However, Finney has too much power and would kill it. Sorry about your situtation. You can PM me if you want to go into any detail that you don't want to discuss openly on the board. I just wish that I had a solution and the means to help.


    • #3
      Re: My Rant on ... Homeless Shelters!

      As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court recently expanded the Eminent Domain provision of the Constitution to allow the Government to "take" (with compensation to the owner) private land for public use in a manner that allows the power to be used for private "revitalization" (as opposed to public projects like roads, parks, wildlife preserves, etc.)

      Many people (you may count me among them) considered this to be an ill-advised decision that opens the door for potential abuses.

      In the case you descibe, the problem is that people will see only the positive side - an urban area being "improved" by new private development. People will unfortunately overlook the displacement factor that you have described.

      There are no easy solutions, to be certain. Given that the courts (who must defer to the Supreme Court) can't help (at least not without a long fight), you should try to influence your local legislative representatives. They won't be able to stop the renewal project, but perhaps (through zoning or otherwise) they can keep the shelter out of your backyard, or at least require greater safeguards.


      • #4
        Re: My Rant on ... Homeless Shelters!

        Unfortunately, when Finney and his other hoods get together and see dollar signs
        And here, Sarge has shown us the core. Carlson and Finney are thick as thieves with the developers and real estate community. If there's a dollar to be made concerning real estate, those two will sell their grandmother for a nice profit.

        I know this is just Springfield, MO we're talking about, but with the SC decision that AV is talking about, this can happen anywhere. If the government wants your land for higher tax revenue, they're going to take it........and don't expect FMV in return.
        The more things change, the more they stay the same.


        • #5
          Re: My Rant on ... Homeless Shelters!

          The problem with all land use regulation is that it comes down to what real estate people call NIMBY. Not in my backyard.

          These places have to go somewhere, but no matter where you put them, someone is going to be upset. Near a school doesnt seem to make sense, but i agree that the best recourse avaiable to you is your local politician that in theory has the best intersts of the community at heart. make sure you point out that if anything happens to one hair on one kids head at the school, you will present plenty of evidence to the public, the voting public, that the representative knew of the risk, was warned that his consituents objected and ignored that risk anyway.

          That being said, i agree that we worship at the temple of the allmighty dollar and chances of winning this type of fight are low. It requires a real groundswell of community support so that the politicians see that any incremental tax revenue is offset by the liklihood of them getting voted out of office, which at the end of the day, is basically all they really care about.

          ramming speed to all

          general counsel


          Related Topics


          • UtterBlitz
            Something to watch for - parents please read
            by UtterBlitz
            I have gotten a couple of these emails regarding this topic. I just wanted to put this out there for the parents that have not heard of this before. I know whip-its(sp?) were big back when I was a kid. It looks like there are more options now.


            Falcon, the maker of Dust-Off, is aware its product is abused in this fashion. It has posted information about inhalant abuse on its web site, and cans of Dust Off bear a label cautioning users against misuse of the product and carry this warning in large red block letters: "Inhalant abuse is illegal and can cause permanent injury or be fatal. Please use our product responsibly."

            Yet while it might be tempting to regard this threat as one limited to Dust-Off (and therefore as a danger that can be averted by banning a specific product from the home), the truth is a great number of teens and pre-teens routinely attempt to get high by abusing inhalants and solvents found in common household products. Dust-Off is just one of a thousand or more products that can abruptly end the life of someone foolishly looking for an inhalant high. The list of items that can be turned to this purpose is almost endless and includes such innocuous-looking goods as hair spray and aerosol whipped cream. Depending on how the intoxicant is taken in, the process is referred to as 'bagging' or 'huffing' ? bagging requires the substance be contained in a plastic or paper bag which the thrill-seeker then breathes from, while huffing involves either breathing directly from an aerosol or through a cloth soaked in solvent.

            Both bagging and huffing can, and have, proved fatal. Sudden death can result on the first try, making one's first time seeking this particular kick also one's last. That first time's being a killer isn't an exaggeration, either: 22% of all inhalant-abuse deaths occur among users who had not previously bagged or huffed. Suffocation, dangerous behavior, and aspiration account for 45% of inhalant abuse fatalities, with "sudden sniffing death" (fatal cardiac arrhythmia) causing the remaining 55%. Suffocation usually takes its toll through the victim's slipping into unconsciousness then dying of a lack of oxygen, but it can also happen through airway obstruction brought about through swelling caused by spraying certain agents into the mouth. Dangerous behavior-related deaths are those in which inhalant abuse cause the deceased to engage in risk-laden activities that bring about his demise: he drowns, jumps or falls from a high place, dies of exposure or hypothermia, is in (or on) a vehicle that he loses control of at high speed, or accidentally sets himself on fire (most inhalants are flammable). Death through aspiration of vomited materials comes about through an unconscious victim's protective airway reflexes being depressed by the chemicals involved. "Sudden sniffing death" is a simple way of saying the hydrocarbons being...
            -09-15-2005, 08:28 PM
          • psycho9985
            What the heck is going on?
            by psycho9985
            Maybe it's all the TV we're watching, or maybe it's our sugar-loaded diets that do it, or perhaps there's something in the water (besides killer fluoride) that's turning us all into dimwits. Whatever the reason, though - all kidding aside, it's probably a combination of the boob tube and declining education standards - there's no better indication of just how dumb we are than the warning labels found on consumer goods.

            Here are a few of the more priceless examples, as gathered from a couple of different sources on the Internet. Some of these would be hilarious if they weren't so disturbing...
            • "For external use only." -- On a curling iron.
            • "Do not use in shower." -- On a hair dryer.
            • "Do not drive with sunshield in place." -- On a windshield-covering dashboard sunshield.
            • "Do not eat toner." -- On a toner cartridge for a laser printer.
            • "May irritate eyes." -- On a can of self-defense pepper spray.
            • "Eating rocks may lead to broken teeth." -- On a novelty rock garden set.
            • "Do not use orally." -- On a toilet bowl cleaning brush.
            • "Do not use for drying pets." -- In the manual for a microwave oven.
            • "Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage." -- On a portable stroller.
            • "Do not iron clothes on body." -- On packaging for an iron.
            • "Wearing this garment does not enable you to fly." -- On a kid-sized Superman costume.
            • "May be harmful if swallowed." -- On a hammer.
            • "Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hand." -- In the manual for a chainsaw.
            • "Do not use orally after using rectally." -- In the instructions for an electric thermometer.
            • "Not to be used as a personal flotation device." -- On a 6" x 10" inflatable picture frame.
            • "Do not put in mouth." -- On a box of bottle rockets.
            • "Do not use as an ice cream topping." - On a bottle of hair coloring agent.
            Funny, huh? But does this mean someone actually stuck a curling iron where the sun doesn't shine? Or tried to use hair coloring as ice cream topping? Or folded up their baby in the stroller? Or thought their superhero costume granted them the power of flight? Sadly, it probably does.

            These warnings paint the sad picture of two distressing trends in America: First, and already mentioned, is our steady migration toward a condition of intellectual vapidity. Second is our growing tendency to sue others for our own stupidity. That's the fundamental reason these labels exist - to keep people from being able to cash in on their lack of common sense.

            This underscores an even greater problem that's contributing to the deterioration of the America we know: The tendency of our court system to hold the individual blameless, no matter how asinine his or her conduct. Nowadays, it's the product's fault for not having a warning against every irrational or ridiculous...
            -09-10-2005, 05:08 PM
          • fearlessone
            Katrina - Bagdad on the Bayou
            by fearlessone
            I am an evacuee and I have to say how lucky I am to be in the group of a small percentage people as my home probably suffered minimal damage.

            I have to say I felt pretty shallow after complaining about the nine hour drive in parking lot traffic to drive less than 250 miles then witness the fact that no water, etc. was passed out w/o any presence of FEMA or the Red Cross.

            Where were they?

            Please do not offend me or others as we do not care about the celebs donating. I am greatly humbled and grateful for the real people that donate like my fellow clannies because it is reaL where others want to get the PR.

            I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to be high and dry with power and food, etc. and to watch these poor people suffer from ineptness from every level of leadership. I am ashamed of my country and its leaders as we seem to have responded to the tsunami faster than to our own which repels me.

            I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to listen about the names of business and celebs donating to various charities when no one was receiving at the very least: water. At least the local media could have been providing important info like when we can return to our homes and how everyone from the poor to the well off can make claims to gain a semblance of the life we had before this disaster. The only people who could hear their fluff are ones that are and were out of harms way.

            Please write your congress reps and demand an investigation to why organization, support and love arrived so late. Also ask them to pressure Dennise Hastert for an apology or resignation for his comments for bulldozing New Orleans; and lastly and most importantly tell your leaders to support the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast!


            -09-03-2005, 11:16 PM
          • UtterBlitz
            Who knows about mercury and ADD?
            by UtterBlitz
            My nephew Mark, up in PA, has been diagnosed as ADD. They had him tested for various things and they found that he has an abnormal amount of mercury in his system. They don't eat a lot of fish and the tap water was tested and it did not contain anything unusual. One of the possible causes of mercury buildups is from vaccinations. I had never heard about this before. Has anyone else heard about this? Some people are connecting ADD and autism to various environmental toxins.

            Here is a website with some information. Autism Mercury

            Has anyone read about this before or had any experience with it?
            -03-12-2008, 07:47 PM
          • Fat Pang
            Life's a gamble........................
            by Fat Pang
            I went to Macau at the weekend with some friends who were over from the UK. For those of you who may be a little unfamiliar with the geography of southern China, Macau is another ex-colonial enclave attached to the 'rump' of China about 1 hour by hydrofoil from Hong Kong.

            Macau is an ex-Portuguese possession which was handed back to China in 1999 after some 400 years. Unlike Hong Kong, which has resolutely destroyed every meaningful reminder of it's 150 odd years of colonial history under a depressingly mediocre layer of concrete, steel and glass (mainly concrete however), Macau has managed to retain enough of it's heritage to make a trip there very interesting. It's a place which is alive with a sense of itself, whilst Hong Kong, at least in terms of it's architecture and cultural investment, has always been far more keen to chase the almighty dollar than retain any sense of tradition and history. Posterity is a dirty word here, an inconvenience to the Beijing-friendly politicians and property developers who form the cartels and quango's here.

            Still, Macau has it's kitsch, and nothing is more spectaculary kitsch than the Casino Lisboa. A monument to the 70's, it's moorish charms have looked a little tattered and worn next to the recent arrival of the big boys from Vegas. The Lisboa has been the jewel in the crown of a certain Sir Stanley Ho. Local Billionaire who made his fortune by transforming Macau into the Vegas of the east with a host of small scale Casino's that targeted the nouveau-riche from Hong Kong and the mainland, he has seen his protectorate threatened by Steve Wynn and the boys behind the MGM grand and the Venetian who are fully intent on breaking his monopoly with a shattering permanence.

            He's nothing if not capable our Stanley however and his emergence from decades of smug complacency was signalled by the construction of the new Lisboa and the refurbishment of the old Casino Lisboa. The new Lisboa looks as if it'll be another shamefully opulent architectural nonsense, whilst the old lisboa benefitted from new bathrooms, new decor, free mini-bars and the largest flat screen TV's that can be reasonably conceived.

            And it was on one of these ridiculously large flat screen TV's that I happened to be watching (Whilst waiting for my wife to finish powdering her nose in the mosaic-clad black and gold bathroom which had a shower that needed a degree in electronics just to turn on) BBC world. BBC world is the infuriatingly tedious version of BBC news that overseas viewers get in lieu of the full strength version back in the UK. It does however have the occasional report of real importance and it was one such that I just happened to tune into the beginning of.

            The report itself was one of those reports from China that immediately prompts you to ask "How the hell did they film this and then get it out of China?". You see, the BBC itself is banned from the mainland...
            -10-11-2006, 12:38 AM